Forsyth v. Baxter
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action commenced in the Peoria Circuit Court by the appellees against the appellants, upon a promissory note of which the following is a copy : “ $400 r%%. St. Louis, May 22d, 1837. Ten days after date, we promise to pay to the order of Hicks, Ewing & Co., four hundred dollars for value received without defalcation. Forsyth & Co.” The declaration was in the usual form, and contained but one count.
Read the full summary
This was an action commenced in the Peoria Circuit Court by the appellees against the appellants, upon a promissory note of which the following is a copy : “ $400 r%%. St. Louis, May 22d, 1837. Ten days after date, we promise to pay to the order of Hicks, Ewing & Co., four hundred dollars for value received without defalcation. Forsyth & Co.” The declaration was in the usual form, and contained but one count. The plaintiffs were alleged to be “of the city and county of St. Louis, State of Missouri,” and to be partners under the name of Hicks, Ewing & Co. The declaration alleged the note to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, Justice
The grounds of error assigned in this case are not sustainable. The objection that the cause is not rightly entitled by the endorsement on the deposition, is not valid. It is substantially set forth, and sufficiently to indicate in what cause the proceedings were had. We do not perceive any objection to the question propounded in the interrogatories, and to which exception is taken as being a leading question. On the exception to reading the laws of Missouri, we are at a loss to perceive what error there was in admitting those laws to show that by those laws, (the contract being there made,.)…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Grider v. DriverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885